Category Archives: Patentability

Board decision finding ineligibility under section 101 affirmed (abstract idea, generic computer)

In Re:  Jeffrey A. Killian Docket No. 2021-2113 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-2113.OPINION.8-23-2022_1994643.pdf) TARANTO, CLEVENGER, CHEN August 23, 2022 Brief Summary:   Board decision finding claims ineligible under section 101 affirmed. Summary:  Mr. Killian appealed USPTO Board decision affirming the examiner’s rejection of certain … Continue reading

Posted in Patent Eligibility (101), Patentability, Software | Leave a comment

DC finding of Stanford’s organ rejection detection claims ineligible under section 101 affirmed

CareDx, Inc. (Stanford Univ.) v. Natera, Inc. and Eurofins Viracor, Inc. Docket Nos. 2022-1027-8 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/22-1027.OPINION.7-18-2022_1979207.pdf) LOURIE, BRYSON, HUGHES July 18, 2022 Brief Summary:   Stanford’s claims to detecting organ rejection found ineligible under section 101 (e.g., “applying standard techniques in … Continue reading

Posted in Method claims, Patent Eligibility (101), Patentability, Section 101 (see also Patentability) | Leave a comment

DC section 101 ineligibility decision reversed as “the particular arrangement of steps in claim 1 provides a technical improvement” over conventional methods

CosmoKey Solutions Gmbh & Co. KG v. Duo Security LLC et al. Docket No. 2020-2043 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/20-2043.OPINION.10-4-2021_1843694.pdf) O’MALLEY, REYNA, STOLL October 4, 2021 Brief Summary:  DC decision finding CosmoKey’s claims unpatentable under section 101 reversed (e.g., “the particular arrangement of steps … Continue reading

Posted in Patent Eligibility (101), Patentability, Section 101 (see also Patentability), Software | Leave a comment

Digital camera device claims affirmed as patent ineligible under section 101

Yanbin Yu, et al. v. Apple Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al. Docket No. 2020-1760 (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1760.OPINION.6-11-2021_1789244.pdf) NEWMAN, PROST, TARANTO June 11, 2021 Brief Summary:  DC finding that claims to “improved digital camera” are patent ineligibile (101) affirmed (“whether a … Continue reading

Posted in Patent Eligibility (101), Patentability | Leave a comment

Rejection of Stanford’s genotyping claims affirmed as patent ineligible under section 101

In re:  Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University Docket No. 2020-1288 (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1288.OPINION.3-25-2021_1753695.pdf) PROST, LOURIE, REYNA March 25, 2021 Brief Summary:  PTAB decision of ineligibility under section 101 of second Stanford patent application affirmed (“patent ineligible abstract ideas … Continue reading

Posted in Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Patent Eligibility (101), Patentability, Software | Leave a comment

Rejection of Stanford’s diagnostic claims affirmed as “mental steps… not integrated into a practical application”, not including a “specific method of treatment for specific patients using a specific compound at specific doses to achieve a specific outcome”

In Re:  Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University Docket No. 2020-1012 (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1012.OPINION.3-11-2021_1746411.pdf) PROST, LOURIE, REYNA March 11, 2021 Brief Summary:  Board decision finding Stanford’s diagnostic claims ineligible (“mental steps… not integrated into a practical application”, no “specific … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Patent Eligibility (101), Patentability, Section 101 (see also Patentability), Software | Leave a comment

DC ineligibility decision erroneous as claims not “solely directed to the printed matter”

C. R. Bard, et al. v. AngioDynamics, Inc. Docket No. 2019-1756, -1934 (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/19-1756.OPINION.11-10-2020_1683097.pdf) REYNA, SCHALL, STOLL November 10, 2020 Brief Summary:  DC erroneously granted JMOL based on expert mistake and conclusion that printed matter made claims patent ineligible under section … Continue reading

Posted in Inducement to Infringe, Infringement, Patent Eligibility (101), Patentability | Leave a comment

Revised FC opinion maintains invalidity of one independent claim as claiming a natural law and nothing more but vacates and remands DC invalidity decision regarding second independent claim as including “positioning” limitation”

American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC, et al. Docket No. 2018-1763 NEWMAN, TARANTO, STOLL October 3, 2019 (revised July 30, 2020) Update (July 30, 2020): Original FC opinion affirmed the DC decision that AA’s claims are ineligible … Continue reading

Posted in Patent Eligibility (101), Patentability | Leave a comment

DC patent ineligibility holding for Illumina’s fetal DNA-related claims again reversed

Illumina, Inc., Sequenom, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. et al. Docket No. 2019-1419 LOURIE, MOORE, REYNA March 17, 2020 Update (August 3, 2020): In a revision of its March 17, 2020 opinion reversing the DC’s 101 ineligibility decision, the FC … Continue reading

Posted in Patent Eligibility (101), Patentability | Leave a comment

Patent ineligibility decision affirmed as claims “recite no technological solution”

Dropbox, Inc. et al. v. Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. Docket No. 2019-1765, -1767, -1823 PROST, WALLACH, HUGHES June 19, 2020 Non-precedential Brief Summary: DC holdings of patent ineligibility affirmed as claims did not, e.g., “describe how to solve the problem in … Continue reading

Posted in Patentability, Section 101 (see also Patentability), Software | Leave a comment